The square & the landscape!

Difference in sight I guess. For me the square looks largest and they decrease in size as you move to the right.

Mike

noumin said:

@ bowzart

Concerning the appearance of formats, I've been doing some maths
and sketching. On the attachment you can see various formats
(square, 4x5, 645, 35mm, 612) and they are all of the same area.
To me the square appears slightly smaller than the rest of it and the
612 slightly larger than the rest of it. But I'm not sure as, to me, the
difference is minute.
OTOH, if the difference is minute, why bother at all ? If you want a picture
of a series of pictures to stand out above the others, I think you really
have to move up a size (8x10 > 12x16), then it stands out. But if I print them
all the same area, within a certain range, none of the pictures will stand out.
Much ado about nothing then.

Click to expand...

I'm having a hard time understanding your comment that all the formats are of the same area. A 6x12 is two 6x6's in area.

Early Riser said:

I'm having a hard time understanding your comment that all the formats are of the same area. A 6x12 is two 6x6's in area.

Click to expand...

Isn't he showing an outline of a print from each format with the same area.

What's more important is how you mix the formats at an exhibition/publication stage.

I've thought quite hard about this as I shoot 5x4 & 10x8, as well as 6x17 and more recently 6x6. I made my decisions about actual print sizes based on visual comparisons, rather than any maths, how the final exhibition prints work together despite the format differences is quite critical. I prefer a coherence once the work is hung, but I often use a few images larger than the rest.

Ian

I think the format you choose depends on your personality. I always make squares, and that's perfect for me in portraits, landscapes, and every other kind of photography.
I tend to notice that panoramic images are made by very stable and calm people - maybe somewhere there's a corelation?

Y'know, the square simply doesn't equal any other rectangle.

A square is a very special case. It is, among rectangles, unique. Visually it has dynamic properties that are precisely specific to it. Just WHAT these properties are is subject to some speculation. My opinion and yours may not agree, but different they are nonetheless. That difference provides a very important, yes, the fundamental essential characteristic of the image. One might say that a square is a more passive format, but of course, it also depends upon the graphic content and the way that the visual elements are presented and organized; that could make the passive form internally active, even to the point of violence or chaos. As I mentioned before, designers have told me that they enjoy it because it provides them with lots of options in what they can do with it.

How does the eye move around inside the frame, and how, as designers, do we direct the eye through our graphic choices? A lot of photographers, I think, don't understand that, whether conscious or unconscious of it, they ARE designers, not just "picture takers". That is, even if they are just taking a picture. Design is not a set of skills that most of us are born with; maybe no one is. It is something that must be learned, whether that learning is formal or not. Designing by imitation may work in some individual circumstances, but to do so is simply to commit to a superficial reproduction of others' images, or a class of images. This happens unconsciously, usually. To actively design, it is a whole lot better if one makes decisions wide awake.

Even if they are the same # of sq. units, no two rectangles are the same if their aspect ratio differs. The aspect of the frame is the very basis of what makes the photograph, painting, etc.

If you can't or won't design within a specific bounded space, you can or will do NOTHING in this medium or in any other.

Noumin, thanks for the graphic comparison. Looking at your examples, I feel that the two end shapes (the square and panoramic) have the most visual impact per unit area. If I as printing those different shapes for a consistent feel to a show, I think I would tend to make all the vertical dimentions of those shapes the same, and not worry as much about the actual area...though the panoramic format might have to be different. Then it depends on how the images are displayed -- how close together, grouping same proportioned images together, etc.

And Bowzart's "If you can't or won't design within a specific bounded space, you can or will do NOTHING in this medium or in any other." is right on the money. It is what I meant be "filling all the negative" in my previous post.

Vaughn

After reading this and as a rank amateur, I find great comfort that it isn't just me. I have now to date shot maybe 6 rolls with my Autocord TLR. Technically great, super sharp etc but composition just doesn't gel for me. Whilst taking the shot, I am there looking through and think I have a great composition then somehow it gets lost in translation when printing.

I prefer to fill the frame, I suppose what I am realising is that it is a change of mentality to do square but it offers a different experience and to persevere with it.

There is something about framing a shot with a TLR that is so different from anything else I have experienced, part of that is the square element, somehow the feeling of it being easier to find great compositions, part maybe the bent head. currently it all feels like a balloon just let go and floating outta reach but I can sense the great potential.

off to chase balloons .........